Budget Cuts April 2011
31/03/11 18:35 Filed in: social justice
Reuters reports that Republicans and Democrats have settled on a basic outline of a budget to prevent government shutdown which no one wants. The $33 billion in cuts, Reuters reports, would do little to nothing to “plug a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion.” There was no discussion in the report about what such a cut might mean for the fledgling economy or about job creation. In other words, nothing was said factually about whether this cut in budget would hurt or help jobs -- which people need desperately. Nor is there any discussion of how the extension of Bush era tax-cuts to the rich add to the budget deficit, which might be interesting news to have. I also find it interesting that in these discussions, which often discuss targeting social security or medicare, that no mention is ever made that these funds are ones that tax payers pay into directly. That is, why is it not seen as stealing from you and me when Republicans or Democrats talk about cutting social security benefits or medicare, which are “ear-marked” on our checks separate from our other taxes.
Now, to more of the point. The agreement seems so far to impose “immediate cuts averaging 25 % of nearly every aspect of the government’s nonmilitary operations from food safety inspections to nuclear weapons monitoring.”
Why, as I’ve asked in another post, is military not targeted as something that needs cut equal with or even more so than food safety inspections? Have we not learned in the last twenty years that when we cut inspections and cut the people able to do inspections we endanger human lives? How many Americans have died from e-coli poisoning? How many people are in jeopardy if our nuclear reactors experience problems like Japan’s Fukushuma Daiichi plant?
These questions must be pressed on our legislators -- our REPRESENTatives. Who are they representing? The budget is a moral document. What moral choices are we making?
Now, to more of the point. The agreement seems so far to impose “immediate cuts averaging 25 % of nearly every aspect of the government’s nonmilitary operations from food safety inspections to nuclear weapons monitoring.”
Why, as I’ve asked in another post, is military not targeted as something that needs cut equal with or even more so than food safety inspections? Have we not learned in the last twenty years that when we cut inspections and cut the people able to do inspections we endanger human lives? How many Americans have died from e-coli poisoning? How many people are in jeopardy if our nuclear reactors experience problems like Japan’s Fukushuma Daiichi plant?
These questions must be pressed on our legislators -- our REPRESENTatives. Who are they representing? The budget is a moral document. What moral choices are we making?
Comments
Evolution Controversy -- What?
31/03/11 13:29 Filed in: Human Nature
I’m afraid, I don’t get the evolution controversy. God created the earth and the whole universe, from the simplest superstring to the greatest nebula to the hottest galaxy. He may have even created an unlimited number of universes, as scientists seem to think today that multiple universes exist. In all of this creating, God made the human person -- homo sapiens sapiens. He gave homo sapiens some things they share with other creatures and some things they do particularly better or only by themselves: speech, advanced reasoning, art, philosophy and science. We are closer to God than any other created material being (except, perhaps, elves, as Peter Kreeft argues). The fact that we evolved from the same evolutionary line as the great apes cannot and does not lessen who we are.
I am not sure, then, why people are still fighting the evolution wars, as this post reports about schools in Tennessee. A bill was proposed that would allow an instructor to teach whatever her beliefs were about science or evolution despite the fact that it has no scientific backing -- as in the case of creationism or intelligent design. Why would we allow our children to be taught something that is not true or to be taught that what is true is not true?
It must be because we believe science threatens our dignity. What nonsense!
Imagine you are an artist and you paint, and you’ve created an oeuvre of hundreds of paintings. Do you love all of them equally? Did you invest more energy in some than you did in others? Do you not have one or two that, when a guest comes over, you say -- this is my favorite. They all came from the same pallet. They all came from the same colors. In fact, some painting evolved from other ones -- you modified lines, concentrated on particular themes, highlighted various elements. Does this make the painting any the less valuable?
Just the contrary.
But, as I said, I really don’t understand the hot air.
I am not sure, then, why people are still fighting the evolution wars, as this post reports about schools in Tennessee. A bill was proposed that would allow an instructor to teach whatever her beliefs were about science or evolution despite the fact that it has no scientific backing -- as in the case of creationism or intelligent design. Why would we allow our children to be taught something that is not true or to be taught that what is true is not true?
It must be because we believe science threatens our dignity. What nonsense!
Imagine you are an artist and you paint, and you’ve created an oeuvre of hundreds of paintings. Do you love all of them equally? Did you invest more energy in some than you did in others? Do you not have one or two that, when a guest comes over, you say -- this is my favorite. They all came from the same pallet. They all came from the same colors. In fact, some painting evolved from other ones -- you modified lines, concentrated on particular themes, highlighted various elements. Does this make the painting any the less valuable?
Just the contrary.
But, as I said, I really don’t understand the hot air.
Media Bias and War
30/03/11 11:19 Filed in: social justice
Anyone listening to a variety of news and talk media can recognize the truth in this article about bias in the media. I don’t mean the supposed left-wing or liberal bias. No such bias exists, as been proven over and over by independent sources. The notion of a liberal bias in the media is a propaganda tool of the right. Rather, the media favors corporations and favors right-wing dialogue and phrasing of such issues. How else would you explain the complete inundation of the terms “death panels” and “government health care” over what the administration actually discussed during the health care debate? Another example mentioned in this article is that “out of "hundreds of stories" that mentioned health care reform "all but 18 of these stories made no mention of 'single-payer' ... and only five included the views of advocates of single-payer - none of which appeared on television."”
I want to focus on a particular aspect of this bias, however, an aspect that proves destructive to our nation and to our politics. The media has rarely discussed or mentioned the possibility of cuts to the military or to the defense budget. Neither party can afford to talk about such cuts because they will be seen as weak on defense, which, let’s be honest with ourselves, it what makes Americans really proud. How many days do we reserve each year to honor our war heroes and our army? I’m not suggesting that we ought not: these are brave men and women who defend our country and our ideals. Rather, I’m saying that the defense is our number one concern and is more sacrosanct than God Himself.
Yet, if we really want to balance the budget and honor our debt to the retirees – present and future – and to honor the right to health care – then cutting our military budget is, not only the easiest, but the least costly. We can cut our military budget by billions and still no one in the world would spend as much as the United States does on “defense.”
If we do not break past this bias in the media and in politics, we will continue to witness our country dwindle in debt, in failing to care for the elderly, the poor, the orphan, and those who have worked hard all of their lives. We will see the dissolution of the American dream.
I want to focus on a particular aspect of this bias, however, an aspect that proves destructive to our nation and to our politics. The media has rarely discussed or mentioned the possibility of cuts to the military or to the defense budget. Neither party can afford to talk about such cuts because they will be seen as weak on defense, which, let’s be honest with ourselves, it what makes Americans really proud. How many days do we reserve each year to honor our war heroes and our army? I’m not suggesting that we ought not: these are brave men and women who defend our country and our ideals. Rather, I’m saying that the defense is our number one concern and is more sacrosanct than God Himself.
Yet, if we really want to balance the budget and honor our debt to the retirees – present and future – and to honor the right to health care – then cutting our military budget is, not only the easiest, but the least costly. We can cut our military budget by billions and still no one in the world would spend as much as the United States does on “defense.”
If we do not break past this bias in the media and in politics, we will continue to witness our country dwindle in debt, in failing to care for the elderly, the poor, the orphan, and those who have worked hard all of their lives. We will see the dissolution of the American dream.
Fish and Crucifix
29/03/11 11:50 Filed in: social justice
Stanley Fish discusses an interesting court case in the EU in his most recent post. The case concerns the attempt to hang crucifixes in classrooms in Italy. The education was sued because it violated a principle of the EU Convention on Human Rights: “the right of parents to ensure … education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
Fish notes that the court -- which decided 15 - 2 (impressive) -- provided three arguments in favor of allowing the crucifix to be hung in classrooms. First, the crucifix, so the court said, it not a specifically religious symbol. (Part of me wants to say: Oh, ask a vampire.) Second, if it is a symbol, it represents the virtue of charity which Christians hold more sacred even than belief in God. (I’d like that reasoning to meet some of my students and fellow parishioners.) Finally, the court argued that the crucifix has various interpretation and, therefore, does not impose one meaning over another.
Fish concludes his argument by saying it does not matter to him at a certain level whether the courts allow crucifixes to hang in classrooms. What matters, instead, is the mental gymnastics the courts went through to deny that the crucifix is a religious symbol.
Several points could be made here, and I have to admit that I have some prejudice in this issue. The prejudice is not what you might think: it’s not my Catholicism. Rather, it’s my feelings about the Confederate flag. For me, the Confederate flag is more about the General Lee in the Dukes of Hazard than it is about anything to do with the Civil War in America. Context matters here. And the question becomes one of how do we balance the claims of those who are the descendents of the victimized with those claims of the people living today who have a different meaning for the symbol.
On this note, Fish dismisses too easily the idea that Christianity is about charity and not about belief in God. Yet, I think for many Christians, it is about charity. It must be if they are not to fall into the Euthyphro trap, which remains suspiciously absent from Fish’s diatribe. We believe in this God because He is charitable, because God is Love! What is more important, God or Charity? Might be asking the chicken and egg question. But my point isn’t that: it’s that context matters.
Which brings me to the specific case: Fish has made judgments about the interpretation of 15 people on a high court in the EU. Does he have the same nuance of understanding as these people? Does he grasp the cultural understanding of the crucifix for Italians or for the EU? Perhaps he does, but if so, that never makes it into his discussion. Why?
Because it doesn’t matter for his analysis. And that, I think, is the most important issue of all. Context always matters. I don’t mean that I side with placing the crucifix in the classroom or with waving the confederate flag in the south. Rather, I am arguing that we cannot make these moral judgments from abstract principles alone. And that is exactly what Fish is trying to do, in the end, despite his not caring about whether there are crucifixes hanging in the classroom in Italy or not.
Fish notes that the court -- which decided 15 - 2 (impressive) -- provided three arguments in favor of allowing the crucifix to be hung in classrooms. First, the crucifix, so the court said, it not a specifically religious symbol. (Part of me wants to say: Oh, ask a vampire.) Second, if it is a symbol, it represents the virtue of charity which Christians hold more sacred even than belief in God. (I’d like that reasoning to meet some of my students and fellow parishioners.) Finally, the court argued that the crucifix has various interpretation and, therefore, does not impose one meaning over another.
Fish concludes his argument by saying it does not matter to him at a certain level whether the courts allow crucifixes to hang in classrooms. What matters, instead, is the mental gymnastics the courts went through to deny that the crucifix is a religious symbol.
Several points could be made here, and I have to admit that I have some prejudice in this issue. The prejudice is not what you might think: it’s not my Catholicism. Rather, it’s my feelings about the Confederate flag. For me, the Confederate flag is more about the General Lee in the Dukes of Hazard than it is about anything to do with the Civil War in America. Context matters here. And the question becomes one of how do we balance the claims of those who are the descendents of the victimized with those claims of the people living today who have a different meaning for the symbol.
On this note, Fish dismisses too easily the idea that Christianity is about charity and not about belief in God. Yet, I think for many Christians, it is about charity. It must be if they are not to fall into the Euthyphro trap, which remains suspiciously absent from Fish’s diatribe. We believe in this God because He is charitable, because God is Love! What is more important, God or Charity? Might be asking the chicken and egg question. But my point isn’t that: it’s that context matters.
Which brings me to the specific case: Fish has made judgments about the interpretation of 15 people on a high court in the EU. Does he have the same nuance of understanding as these people? Does he grasp the cultural understanding of the crucifix for Italians or for the EU? Perhaps he does, but if so, that never makes it into his discussion. Why?
Because it doesn’t matter for his analysis. And that, I think, is the most important issue of all. Context always matters. I don’t mean that I side with placing the crucifix in the classroom or with waving the confederate flag in the south. Rather, I am arguing that we cannot make these moral judgments from abstract principles alone. And that is exactly what Fish is trying to do, in the end, despite his not caring about whether there are crucifixes hanging in the classroom in Italy or not.
Obama's Speech on Libya
28/03/11 17:38 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
President Obama in a televised speech defended the military actions in Libya. You will be able to hear any number of pundits on the radio and television dissecting his speech. Yet, I think a few things need to be emphasized that others will miss.
First and foremost: Obama says “The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.” I find this reasoning interesting and promising. Where George W. Bush made unilateral action the motif of his presidency, Obama insists, rightly I think, that the United Nations is important for military action. But, more importantly, he holds that the UN Security Council would be seen as crippled if a strong military did not carry out it’s will. How many times has the United States, however, prevented the UN from carrying out its mandate of maintaining peace among nations and preventing injustice?
I would also note that Obama’s position on the UN mirrors that of Pope Benedict XVI. In his recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), Benedict XVI called for a UN with teeth. Such a United Nations would be able to enforce human rights across the globe.
This belief in a UN with teeth, however, requires something that Obama did not address: a conception of a common good. That is, in order to have a truly global governing body, we must first establish a common good that such a governing body would protect. If you watch Star Trek, Star Fleet serves as the teeth of the Federation. Presumably the Federation has some common good it pursues -- living out the dream of Gene Roddenbery. But, until the world can agree on any such common good, the UN will either lack the necessary teeth to carry out its vision or, worse, it will be susceptible to corruption from those who do.
First and foremost: Obama says “The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.” I find this reasoning interesting and promising. Where George W. Bush made unilateral action the motif of his presidency, Obama insists, rightly I think, that the United Nations is important for military action. But, more importantly, he holds that the UN Security Council would be seen as crippled if a strong military did not carry out it’s will. How many times has the United States, however, prevented the UN from carrying out its mandate of maintaining peace among nations and preventing injustice?
I would also note that Obama’s position on the UN mirrors that of Pope Benedict XVI. In his recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), Benedict XVI called for a UN with teeth. Such a United Nations would be able to enforce human rights across the globe.
This belief in a UN with teeth, however, requires something that Obama did not address: a conception of a common good. That is, in order to have a truly global governing body, we must first establish a common good that such a governing body would protect. If you watch Star Trek, Star Fleet serves as the teeth of the Federation. Presumably the Federation has some common good it pursues -- living out the dream of Gene Roddenbery. But, until the world can agree on any such common good, the UN will either lack the necessary teeth to carry out its vision or, worse, it will be susceptible to corruption from those who do.
Democracy, Human Nature, Education
28/03/11 13:18 Filed in: social justice | Human Nature
A recent post on Cracked.com gave 5 Reasons why human beings are not capable of democracy. These five reasons are
1. The wording of an issue can change our opinion on it
2. Watching the news tends to make us less informed
3. Political pundits are even worse at knowing the facts than the common person
4. The more informed one is, the more partisan one becomes
5. We hate each other over imaginary differences
Of these five reasons, only the first and fifth ones have anything to do with something inherent in human nature itself. The fact that wording can change our opinion on something concerns the way we process information. Processing has a lot to do with what George Lakoff calls framing: human nature means that, as individuals, we process information about the world through framing it in a particular way, which means that key-words act as codes that activate certain frames. The fifth issue concerns the tendency of human beings to exacerbate differences to find greater clarity and to categorize.
Neither of these points are necessarily detrimental to democracy per se. Both require greater education in the virtues, particularly the virtue of phronesis. Phronesis is the virtue of practical wisdom. We can true ourselves to think more clearly and more cautiously about issues. But training in phronesis requires a community willing to invest in such training and a community that is willing to limit the kinds of “violence” that harm the development of the virtue: yelling on television, commercialization of politics, divisive rhetoric.
A society aimed at the common good can and should embrace democracy.
The question is always one of the will.
1. The wording of an issue can change our opinion on it
2. Watching the news tends to make us less informed
3. Political pundits are even worse at knowing the facts than the common person
4. The more informed one is, the more partisan one becomes
5. We hate each other over imaginary differences
Of these five reasons, only the first and fifth ones have anything to do with something inherent in human nature itself. The fact that wording can change our opinion on something concerns the way we process information. Processing has a lot to do with what George Lakoff calls framing: human nature means that, as individuals, we process information about the world through framing it in a particular way, which means that key-words act as codes that activate certain frames. The fifth issue concerns the tendency of human beings to exacerbate differences to find greater clarity and to categorize.
Neither of these points are necessarily detrimental to democracy per se. Both require greater education in the virtues, particularly the virtue of phronesis. Phronesis is the virtue of practical wisdom. We can true ourselves to think more clearly and more cautiously about issues. But training in phronesis requires a community willing to invest in such training and a community that is willing to limit the kinds of “violence” that harm the development of the virtue: yelling on television, commercialization of politics, divisive rhetoric.
A society aimed at the common good can and should embrace democracy.
The question is always one of the will.
Living Water
27/03/11 09:03 Filed in: sunday reflections
Water. Clear, cool, refreshing. Neccessary.
Life.
The Israelites wandering in the desert know that water is life. We often do not because it is so available to us, and many of us drink our water in disguised forms: soft drinks, lemonade, beer. But underneath it all is water.
Notice, from the first reading Exodus what is happening. The Israelites have just been rescued from slavery. They are lost in the desert, thirsty. They complain: why did you bring us out of Egypt if only to die here in this desert.
Are we ever like that? Why did you do this to me, Lord? Many times, our questions aren’t about material things. Sometimes we just question whether God is even with us, just as the Israelites did at Massah and Meribah. Part of this story is about faith, and we recognize that in both the second reading and the gospel. Paul tells us that we are justified by faith, and through faith, we receive grace from God. Now we may boast in the hope of the glory of God. Do we boast in that hope? Now, during this lenten season, is the time to ask that question. What is our hope? What is God’s glory?
It is the resurrection toward which we are reaching.
For Jesus reveals Himself in the gospel passage. He is the Christ! But what is Christ to you and me? We are not Israelites. We are like the Samaritan woman. This story at the well that Jacob built after he fought the angel brings the three readings together. Once more, God provided the Israelites with a source of life: this well. Once more, it was a contest between human faith and God. Jesus transfigures this story, now. For He comes to the Samaritan woman and says,
“If you knew the gift of God
and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink, ‘
you would have asked him
and he would have given you living water.”
Jesus offers us living water so that we will never be thirsty. He offers us eternal life. That is our hope in the Glory of God. Notice, also, that in offering Himself to the Samaritan woman, Jesus offers Himself to all of humanity. A time is coming when the true believer will worship neither on the mountain nor in Jerusalem. They will worship in truth and in Spirit.
We get a taste of what that worship is in the rest of the passage: it is reaping where we have not sown. In working to bring about the kingdom of God, we will worship together with Jesus, with God, in truth and Spirit. What is the nature of that work?
Feed the hungry
Clothe the naked
House the homeless
Or, love thy neighbor -- the Samaritan and the Jew and all people -- as you love yourself.
Life.
The Israelites wandering in the desert know that water is life. We often do not because it is so available to us, and many of us drink our water in disguised forms: soft drinks, lemonade, beer. But underneath it all is water.
Notice, from the first reading Exodus what is happening. The Israelites have just been rescued from slavery. They are lost in the desert, thirsty. They complain: why did you bring us out of Egypt if only to die here in this desert.
Are we ever like that? Why did you do this to me, Lord? Many times, our questions aren’t about material things. Sometimes we just question whether God is even with us, just as the Israelites did at Massah and Meribah. Part of this story is about faith, and we recognize that in both the second reading and the gospel. Paul tells us that we are justified by faith, and through faith, we receive grace from God. Now we may boast in the hope of the glory of God. Do we boast in that hope? Now, during this lenten season, is the time to ask that question. What is our hope? What is God’s glory?
It is the resurrection toward which we are reaching.
For Jesus reveals Himself in the gospel passage. He is the Christ! But what is Christ to you and me? We are not Israelites. We are like the Samaritan woman. This story at the well that Jacob built after he fought the angel brings the three readings together. Once more, God provided the Israelites with a source of life: this well. Once more, it was a contest between human faith and God. Jesus transfigures this story, now. For He comes to the Samaritan woman and says,
“If you knew the gift of God
and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink, ‘
you would have asked him
and he would have given you living water.”
Jesus offers us living water so that we will never be thirsty. He offers us eternal life. That is our hope in the Glory of God. Notice, also, that in offering Himself to the Samaritan woman, Jesus offers Himself to all of humanity. A time is coming when the true believer will worship neither on the mountain nor in Jerusalem. They will worship in truth and in Spirit.
We get a taste of what that worship is in the rest of the passage: it is reaping where we have not sown. In working to bring about the kingdom of God, we will worship together with Jesus, with God, in truth and Spirit. What is the nature of that work?
Feed the hungry
Clothe the naked
House the homeless
Or, love thy neighbor -- the Samaritan and the Jew and all people -- as you love yourself.
Food Production and 9 Billion People
24/03/11 09:38 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
As reported on Arstechnica, we are facing a food production crisis. Currently 7 billion people live on the planet. By 2050, scientists expect 9 billion people. Of the 7 billion people currently living, over 1 billion are starving.
So think about that: 1 out of every 7 people in the world could die from starvation!
And it can only get worse. We’ve maxed out what the world can produce. Environmental changes caused by global warming will make the world hotter, which means we have to change what crops we grow. Plus, we are short on clean water, which is necessary for farming. As the world warms and glaciers melt, sea levels will rise, put all of these people on less and less land -- which will make farm land even more costly.
On top of that, we’ve turned to bio-fuels to stop our dependency on oil. This move is one of the worst we could make. We’ve drive up the price of corn, we grow more corn -- which is costly to land -- and we’ve stopped people from growing other more healthy corn. Corn is costly to land because it takes such a large space to grow -- four feet between each plant -- and because it depletes the soil of nutrients.
We need to start thinking more clearly and more carefully about how we will feed people. This means rethinking the following:
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on these issues?
So think about that: 1 out of every 7 people in the world could die from starvation!
And it can only get worse. We’ve maxed out what the world can produce. Environmental changes caused by global warming will make the world hotter, which means we have to change what crops we grow. Plus, we are short on clean water, which is necessary for farming. As the world warms and glaciers melt, sea levels will rise, put all of these people on less and less land -- which will make farm land even more costly.
On top of that, we’ve turned to bio-fuels to stop our dependency on oil. This move is one of the worst we could make. We’ve drive up the price of corn, we grow more corn -- which is costly to land -- and we’ve stopped people from growing other more healthy corn. Corn is costly to land because it takes such a large space to grow -- four feet between each plant -- and because it depletes the soil of nutrients.
We need to start thinking more clearly and more carefully about how we will feed people. This means rethinking the following:
- small farms versus corporate farms
- meat
- water use
- water reclamation and clean water technology
- genetically engineered crops
- politics of food distribution
- eating seasonally/ habits of eating
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on these issues?
Ruddick, Mothering and Nature
23/03/11 08:35 Filed in: Human Nature
The NY Times reports that Sara Ruddick died on Sunday 20 March 2011. Ruddick wrote a book, “Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace.” In this book, she defended the idea that being a mother involved developing specific ways of seeing the world, of responding to the world, and specific virtues.
Her argument should come as no surprise to those who think from an Aristotelian perspective or who talk about practices. When we engage in practices, we are forming ourselves. As we play chess, for example, we develop more analytic and spatio-pattern recognition skills. Developing these skills can only affect the way we see the world. Ruddick’s argument is that, in mothering, the person develops ways of seeing the world that make them less likely to engage in violence.
Importantly, she notes that mother is not a gender-specific. As the NY Time quotes: ““Anyone who commits her or himself to responding to children’s demands, and makes the work of response a considerable part of her or his life, is a mother,””
I think this is important to keep in mind. Mothering -- relating to the world as a responding, caring parent -- is something we can all do. I write this in part because of rereading John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens -- On Human Labor -- yesterday. I’ve praised and defended Catholic Social Teaching often, and I teach a class on Catholic Social Teaching. One of the problems with the teaching, however, is its insistence, as stated by JP II, that “women have their own work” or that there is a “work specific to women.” Now, admittedly, JP II defends the idea that women are owed the same rights and respect as everyone else. Yet, he also contends that employment should be designed to allow women to perform those duties special to her.
Of course, JP II is saying that women have special work as mothers that is based on their gender. They were created to be mothers. Ruddick contends that is not so.
As a father, I have to side with Ruddick here. Women do, in fact, do biological things I cannot do, and we know scientifically that breast-feeding is much healthier for the baby. Yet, men have just as much right and duty to care for the child in the same way that women do. This duty includes feeding and changing children. It also included developing those ways of seeing the world that Ruddick identifies as “mothering.”
And perhaps, if we recognize mothering as something men have a responsibility for, we can develop in men the same aversion to violence that Ruddick believes female mothers gain from the practice of mothering.
Her argument should come as no surprise to those who think from an Aristotelian perspective or who talk about practices. When we engage in practices, we are forming ourselves. As we play chess, for example, we develop more analytic and spatio-pattern recognition skills. Developing these skills can only affect the way we see the world. Ruddick’s argument is that, in mothering, the person develops ways of seeing the world that make them less likely to engage in violence.
Importantly, she notes that mother is not a gender-specific. As the NY Time quotes: ““Anyone who commits her or himself to responding to children’s demands, and makes the work of response a considerable part of her or his life, is a mother,””
I think this is important to keep in mind. Mothering -- relating to the world as a responding, caring parent -- is something we can all do. I write this in part because of rereading John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens -- On Human Labor -- yesterday. I’ve praised and defended Catholic Social Teaching often, and I teach a class on Catholic Social Teaching. One of the problems with the teaching, however, is its insistence, as stated by JP II, that “women have their own work” or that there is a “work specific to women.” Now, admittedly, JP II defends the idea that women are owed the same rights and respect as everyone else. Yet, he also contends that employment should be designed to allow women to perform those duties special to her.
Of course, JP II is saying that women have special work as mothers that is based on their gender. They were created to be mothers. Ruddick contends that is not so.
As a father, I have to side with Ruddick here. Women do, in fact, do biological things I cannot do, and we know scientifically that breast-feeding is much healthier for the baby. Yet, men have just as much right and duty to care for the child in the same way that women do. This duty includes feeding and changing children. It also included developing those ways of seeing the world that Ruddick identifies as “mothering.”
And perhaps, if we recognize mothering as something men have a responsibility for, we can develop in men the same aversion to violence that Ruddick believes female mothers gain from the practice of mothering.
Unions, Higher Education
22/03/11 09:50 Filed in: social justice
Stanley Fish has a conversation with Walter Benn Michaels about unions for public higher education. I’ve already posted why unions are good, what the attack on unions is really about, and on the value of education. Fish and Michaels address two other issues.
First, Fish addresses the issue that those who want to get rid of unions want to get rid of them because it undermines leftist politics. Of course, I’ve argued that little separates the left and right in America if we see those terms apply to Democrats and Republicans. If, however, we understand left as a belief system that rejects the dominant form of classical liberalism -- the atomistic and rational pursuit of self interest -- then the point needs to be made stronger. Education is about educating people to participate in politics -- in determining the common good. Fish addresses this in his discussion of Utah. Yes, good unions mean that employees have a say in the direction of their company and employment. Human beings should embrace the autonomy that unions can bring to their jobs. Rather, we have the right in this country arguing that unions “force” people to work, “remove” their say, and “limit” freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is why education is so important: so we can understand how political rhetoric changes the truth.
Second, Michaels makes the point that academics are workers. A lot of people don’t really believe this. Popular media paints a portrait of the academic who spends a few hours teaching and then plays golf the rest of the week, or who gets paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but has no office hours. I know of no one like this, though there may be a few. For the most part, most academics in the United State university system teach a lot and spend time researching a lot. And research is integral to our teaching. How many of you would want a company to make a product they’ve never investigated? Teachers, academics, are workers! Fish, in a moment of admirable humility, says he denied that for a long time and, because of his denial, opposed unions. But he’s come to see the truth now. The truth is much harsher than it appears. Must research institutions -- the ones with the great basketball and football -- rest on the back of teaching assistants -- paid around $10k per year -- and adjuncts -- paid per course, perhaps $3k per class. I knew one guy in PA who taught 7 classes at 3 universities in order to make around $20k. Academics are workers.
Still, the question of unions and higher education touches on something much more fundamental. The purpose of education and the need for universities. Alasdair MacIntyre has trenchantly discussed the way that corporations have taken over the university today. Universities are geared to produce workers and nothing else. The attack on unions is simply another way to make sure that universities do not fulfill their higher mission: helping us to understand our lives and our selves much better, so that we realize that the model of classical liberalism undermines our happiness rather than leads to it.
First, Fish addresses the issue that those who want to get rid of unions want to get rid of them because it undermines leftist politics. Of course, I’ve argued that little separates the left and right in America if we see those terms apply to Democrats and Republicans. If, however, we understand left as a belief system that rejects the dominant form of classical liberalism -- the atomistic and rational pursuit of self interest -- then the point needs to be made stronger. Education is about educating people to participate in politics -- in determining the common good. Fish addresses this in his discussion of Utah. Yes, good unions mean that employees have a say in the direction of their company and employment. Human beings should embrace the autonomy that unions can bring to their jobs. Rather, we have the right in this country arguing that unions “force” people to work, “remove” their say, and “limit” freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is why education is so important: so we can understand how political rhetoric changes the truth.
Second, Michaels makes the point that academics are workers. A lot of people don’t really believe this. Popular media paints a portrait of the academic who spends a few hours teaching and then plays golf the rest of the week, or who gets paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but has no office hours. I know of no one like this, though there may be a few. For the most part, most academics in the United State university system teach a lot and spend time researching a lot. And research is integral to our teaching. How many of you would want a company to make a product they’ve never investigated? Teachers, academics, are workers! Fish, in a moment of admirable humility, says he denied that for a long time and, because of his denial, opposed unions. But he’s come to see the truth now. The truth is much harsher than it appears. Must research institutions -- the ones with the great basketball and football -- rest on the back of teaching assistants -- paid around $10k per year -- and adjuncts -- paid per course, perhaps $3k per class. I knew one guy in PA who taught 7 classes at 3 universities in order to make around $20k. Academics are workers.
Still, the question of unions and higher education touches on something much more fundamental. The purpose of education and the need for universities. Alasdair MacIntyre has trenchantly discussed the way that corporations have taken over the university today. Universities are geared to produce workers and nothing else. The attack on unions is simply another way to make sure that universities do not fulfill their higher mission: helping us to understand our lives and our selves much better, so that we realize that the model of classical liberalism undermines our happiness rather than leads to it.
Why We Fight: Libya
21/03/11 08:00 Filed in: social justice
Yesterday, I watched the movie Why We Fight, a documentary by Eugene Jurecki about the military-industrial complex in the United States. The film takes as its inspiration the farewell address by Dwight Eisenhower in which he warned Americans to remain vigilant that those who control arms production do not become an effective political influence. Jurecki’s film makes the argument -- and a persuasive one -- that we have not remained vigilant.
First, we are beholden to the war machine because it supplies jobs. One company, it noted, produces a jet that has parts made in each of the 50 states. Thus, not only are American citizens beholden to the company, but the elected leaders are as well.
For, second, the elected leaders know where the jobs are and know who greases the wheel. They have lobbyists at their door constantly. And what have we -- the citizens -- done to stop lobbying? Nothing.
Third, we do not demand news from our news media. Sure, we see reporters reporting from the front, but what reports do they give? Do they discuss the damage done to the innocent? The cost to human life? The cost to our peace? The cost to the social needs of people? Eisenhower noted, for instance, how many schools, hospital beds, homes could be built with the expense of one jet fighter. Do we demand information of that sort? Remember the whole WMD debate with Iraq? Our news did not, and we did not demand them to, report on whether there were such WMD. Turns out there weren’t.
Because, fourth, we have this whole industry -- from the Pentagon to the Think Tanks in Washington -- to justify war. They have created ways to take information out of context and convince us of something that is not true.
So I sit and think about these issues in relation to Libya. What don’t we know? What are our real reasons for fighting in Libya. I suspect some of our fighting in Libya is smoke and mirrors. By focusing our attention on Libya, the government effectively keeps our eyes off of Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and other places where people are struggling for their rights. They also keep our eyes off of Fukushima. (See this analysis here.)
Is the war in Libya just? I’ve suggested that it might be, but I would caution that these questions are not so easily answered. Perhaps the question should be, not about this or that war, but about the war machine that we live in. That clearly is not just.
First, we are beholden to the war machine because it supplies jobs. One company, it noted, produces a jet that has parts made in each of the 50 states. Thus, not only are American citizens beholden to the company, but the elected leaders are as well.
For, second, the elected leaders know where the jobs are and know who greases the wheel. They have lobbyists at their door constantly. And what have we -- the citizens -- done to stop lobbying? Nothing.
Third, we do not demand news from our news media. Sure, we see reporters reporting from the front, but what reports do they give? Do they discuss the damage done to the innocent? The cost to human life? The cost to our peace? The cost to the social needs of people? Eisenhower noted, for instance, how many schools, hospital beds, homes could be built with the expense of one jet fighter. Do we demand information of that sort? Remember the whole WMD debate with Iraq? Our news did not, and we did not demand them to, report on whether there were such WMD. Turns out there weren’t.
Because, fourth, we have this whole industry -- from the Pentagon to the Think Tanks in Washington -- to justify war. They have created ways to take information out of context and convince us of something that is not true.
So I sit and think about these issues in relation to Libya. What don’t we know? What are our real reasons for fighting in Libya. I suspect some of our fighting in Libya is smoke and mirrors. By focusing our attention on Libya, the government effectively keeps our eyes off of Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and other places where people are struggling for their rights. They also keep our eyes off of Fukushima. (See this analysis here.)
Is the war in Libya just? I’ve suggested that it might be, but I would caution that these questions are not so easily answered. Perhaps the question should be, not about this or that war, but about the war machine that we live in. That clearly is not just.
Call to Listen
20/03/11 11:51 Filed in: sunday reflections
On the one hand, the readings for today seem fairly straightforward. In the first reading from Genesis, God makes a covenant with Abram. In this covenant, he says he will make Abram the father of a nation and make Abram’s name a great name. Further, all communities will find blessings in Abram. Then, in the second reading, Paul warns us that God has called us according to His plan, not according to ours. Therefore, we must bear our burdens for the Gospel with the strength that God gives us. God has called us to a holy life through grace. Finally, we read the story of the Transfiguration in the Gospel. Jesus takes three disciples on a hilltop to pray. While praying, they see Jesus transformed, as like the sun, and he is speaking with Moses and Elijah. Then, God speaks: “This is my beloved son; listen to him.”
If we are called to holiness, we hear a call God gave to Abram centuries ago. Yet, clearly we see that human beings answer that call according to their own will, not according to God. This simple reading should give pause to anyone who dare thinks they understand God’s word and to anyone who would condemn others for not living the way they want. For we should be humble, the way that Peter and the apostles were humble before Christ’s transfiguration. Thus, God tells us, Jesus, His Son, is the one to whom we should listen, not ourselves. Humility means listening to God.
On the other hand, a deeper meaning remains for us in these readings. Peter offers to make three tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then God speaks, and the disciples fall prostrate. What happens next?
Jesus touches Peter on the shoulder. “Rise, and do not be afraid.” Jesus does not command them to go out and do anything. Rather, He affirms them: Rise, and do not be afraid. Jesus responds to the fear that Peter and the others show.
I’m afraid. Afraid that the beliefs I have are not right; afraid that my ego gets in the way of my faith; afraid that I do my will rather than God’s. Yet, what this gospel is telling us is to have faith. God calls us. He has called us since the time of Abram. He calls us to His will, not ours. We must rise to meet that call, but we must do so humbly, not with pride or fear.
We should be cautious here. We should remember that fear drove Anakin Skywalker to become Darth Vader. Fear can drive us to many things; has driven our Church to do many things: fear of scandal; fear of loss of parishioners; fear that some one’s soul would be damned. Fear can lead us away from God.
What, then, can we do? It’s very simple. Listen. ““This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”” God does not tell us to do anything but listen to Jesus. Perhaps that is the answer here. If we are afraid of answering God’s call according to our own will, then we only need listen. If we are afraid, we only need listen. Thus, Jesus cautions his disciples as they come down the mountain. “Do not tell this vision to anyone until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.” And perhaps, when we tell it, we should remember that we only tell it, and then we calm peoples fears, and we listen.
If we are called to holiness, we hear a call God gave to Abram centuries ago. Yet, clearly we see that human beings answer that call according to their own will, not according to God. This simple reading should give pause to anyone who dare thinks they understand God’s word and to anyone who would condemn others for not living the way they want. For we should be humble, the way that Peter and the apostles were humble before Christ’s transfiguration. Thus, God tells us, Jesus, His Son, is the one to whom we should listen, not ourselves. Humility means listening to God.
On the other hand, a deeper meaning remains for us in these readings. Peter offers to make three tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then God speaks, and the disciples fall prostrate. What happens next?
Jesus touches Peter on the shoulder. “Rise, and do not be afraid.” Jesus does not command them to go out and do anything. Rather, He affirms them: Rise, and do not be afraid. Jesus responds to the fear that Peter and the others show.
I’m afraid. Afraid that the beliefs I have are not right; afraid that my ego gets in the way of my faith; afraid that I do my will rather than God’s. Yet, what this gospel is telling us is to have faith. God calls us. He has called us since the time of Abram. He calls us to His will, not ours. We must rise to meet that call, but we must do so humbly, not with pride or fear.
We should be cautious here. We should remember that fear drove Anakin Skywalker to become Darth Vader. Fear can drive us to many things; has driven our Church to do many things: fear of scandal; fear of loss of parishioners; fear that some one’s soul would be damned. Fear can lead us away from God.
What, then, can we do? It’s very simple. Listen. ““This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”” God does not tell us to do anything but listen to Jesus. Perhaps that is the answer here. If we are afraid of answering God’s call according to our own will, then we only need listen. If we are afraid, we only need listen. Thus, Jesus cautions his disciples as they come down the mountain. “Do not tell this vision to anyone until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.” And perhaps, when we tell it, we should remember that we only tell it, and then we calm peoples fears, and we listen.
UN, Just War, and Libya
18/03/11 12:33 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
As the Christian Science Monitor reports, The Un has passed a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone and the use of force against Col. Muammar Quaddafi if he does not cease violence against protestors and restore power and water to rebel held locations. In a speech on Friday afternoon, President Obama laid out the clear reasons for voting for the resolution and participating in any military action against Quaddafi. Obama declared that the reasons for the sanctions and military action against Quaddafi included the protection of innocent life and the affirmation of universal rights, that the goal of such sanctions and action included the restoration of power and water and the cessation of attacks on innocents, and that the United States role would be limited, but that clearly no foreign military should participate in attacks against the citizens of Libya.
Given my discussion of Just War and the Middle East the other day, I think addressing the UN resolution from just war principles seems appropriate. I think that, given what we know, the UN resolution adheres to just war principles and that Obama’s stated opinion favoring the resolution adhere to just war principles.
The first principle of just war declares that war must be waged for legitimate goals with the aim of establishing peace. These goals include ending oppression and protecting the innocent from violence. Quaddafi is clearly attacking innocents and oppressing people. Second, just war must have a clear goal: the UN resolution and President Obama have established clear goals which are objective and measurable: the end to violence against innocents and the restoration of basic human services. War must be declared by a legitimate authority. Quaddafi has claimed that the UN has no right to interfere with his sovereignty. Yet, given that the resolution passed with wide support (even though Russia and China abstained from voting for the resolution), the question becomes one of the legitimacy of the United Nations. While I have no room to argue this here, I hold firmly to belief in the legitimacy of the United Nations and support, in fact, a stronger UN, one not hampered by the veto power of particular dominant nations. Finally, war must be the last resort. Here, Obama laid out the stages which have led up to the UN resolution. I think they’ve made a legitimate case for voting for the resolution. The question will become, To what extent will they or can they wait for Quaddafi to cease hostilities and restore basic services? This point will be something we will have to judge as we move forward
Given these points, a few others must be kept in mind about just war: primarily, the issue of proportionality and, second, the prohibition against attacking non-combatants.
I suggested in my post the other day, that a problem for modern warfare is the inability to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Even our most sophisticated weaponry ends up killing a significant number of innocents -- a number we gloss over with the term “collateral damage.” But for justice and for the innocent, collateral damage is anything but collateral -- it is testament to the wrongness of war and killing. Can we take military action against Quaddafi without injuring innocents? A no-fly zone seems possible, but what else?
Secondly, we must remember that violence in the war must be proportional to the violence imposed by the offending party. This level is hard to gauge. Clear violations present themselves in the form of nuclear attacks, which can never be legitimized. But to what extent can the Arab league, NATO, and the United States cause violence against Quaddafi and pro-Quaddafi forces?
The only to answer this question is the following: only that violence which is necessary to achieve the legitimate and clear goals of any violent action engaged in: the protection of human life and the restoration of necessary services for a good human life.
Let’s pray that little violence will be necessary to achieve these goals.
Given my discussion of Just War and the Middle East the other day, I think addressing the UN resolution from just war principles seems appropriate. I think that, given what we know, the UN resolution adheres to just war principles and that Obama’s stated opinion favoring the resolution adhere to just war principles.
The first principle of just war declares that war must be waged for legitimate goals with the aim of establishing peace. These goals include ending oppression and protecting the innocent from violence. Quaddafi is clearly attacking innocents and oppressing people. Second, just war must have a clear goal: the UN resolution and President Obama have established clear goals which are objective and measurable: the end to violence against innocents and the restoration of basic human services. War must be declared by a legitimate authority. Quaddafi has claimed that the UN has no right to interfere with his sovereignty. Yet, given that the resolution passed with wide support (even though Russia and China abstained from voting for the resolution), the question becomes one of the legitimacy of the United Nations. While I have no room to argue this here, I hold firmly to belief in the legitimacy of the United Nations and support, in fact, a stronger UN, one not hampered by the veto power of particular dominant nations. Finally, war must be the last resort. Here, Obama laid out the stages which have led up to the UN resolution. I think they’ve made a legitimate case for voting for the resolution. The question will become, To what extent will they or can they wait for Quaddafi to cease hostilities and restore basic services? This point will be something we will have to judge as we move forward
Given these points, a few others must be kept in mind about just war: primarily, the issue of proportionality and, second, the prohibition against attacking non-combatants.
I suggested in my post the other day, that a problem for modern warfare is the inability to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Even our most sophisticated weaponry ends up killing a significant number of innocents -- a number we gloss over with the term “collateral damage.” But for justice and for the innocent, collateral damage is anything but collateral -- it is testament to the wrongness of war and killing. Can we take military action against Quaddafi without injuring innocents? A no-fly zone seems possible, but what else?
Secondly, we must remember that violence in the war must be proportional to the violence imposed by the offending party. This level is hard to gauge. Clear violations present themselves in the form of nuclear attacks, which can never be legitimized. But to what extent can the Arab league, NATO, and the United States cause violence against Quaddafi and pro-Quaddafi forces?
The only to answer this question is the following: only that violence which is necessary to achieve the legitimate and clear goals of any violent action engaged in: the protection of human life and the restoration of necessary services for a good human life.
Let’s pray that little violence will be necessary to achieve these goals.
Defunding NPR
17/03/11 13:35 Filed in: social justice
FOX News reports that the House voted to defund NPR. This defunding means that (a measly) $5 million of tax payed money would not go to support NPR programming. FOX notes, as well, that while Republicans have challenged NPR in recent months, the vote comes after a video caught an ex-NPR executive saying that the Tea Party was full of crazies and that NPR did not need the federal funding.
As I’ve said before, we need to look below the surface here. What’s going on? Surely, some might think that the “left-leaning” NPR should not be funded by tax payer dollars because it is biased and supports a particular view of the world. One wonders, of course, if NPR was “caught” denouncing democrats if it would be the target of the same kind of defunding legislation. But those questions really miss the point. What this legislation does primarily, since we KNOW that NPR can survive without the funding, is serve to divide the nation. NPR serves as a rallying point around which conservatives and liberals, or Republicans and Democrats, can mark out an identity.
If anyone were really worried about what sort of programming tax payer money should support, then the discussion would be much different. The legislation would aim to direct the money rather than simply denying the money.
Yet, such discussions require serious debate among, not only congress members who would rather avoid serious debate, but also you and I and every citizen in the United States. What do we expect from our programming? What do we expect from our tax payer dollars? Is the $5 million sent to NPR a real issue when billions upon billions go to supporting war and the war-machine to which we are so indebted? Why does the United States not have a system like the BBC in the United Kingdom?
These represent substantive questions which require dialogue and a development of a vision of the common good. Yet, American politics and American business cannot support discussions of the common good for it would undermine the pursuit of capital at all costs and would undermine the bureaucracy which tries to rule our lives.
So once more, I challenge each of us to begin talking about the common good and to find unity with each other rather than allowing ourselves to be divided by the political rhetoric that only serves to maintain the status quo and keep those in power in power.
As I’ve said before, we need to look below the surface here. What’s going on? Surely, some might think that the “left-leaning” NPR should not be funded by tax payer dollars because it is biased and supports a particular view of the world. One wonders, of course, if NPR was “caught” denouncing democrats if it would be the target of the same kind of defunding legislation. But those questions really miss the point. What this legislation does primarily, since we KNOW that NPR can survive without the funding, is serve to divide the nation. NPR serves as a rallying point around which conservatives and liberals, or Republicans and Democrats, can mark out an identity.
If anyone were really worried about what sort of programming tax payer money should support, then the discussion would be much different. The legislation would aim to direct the money rather than simply denying the money.
Yet, such discussions require serious debate among, not only congress members who would rather avoid serious debate, but also you and I and every citizen in the United States. What do we expect from our programming? What do we expect from our tax payer dollars? Is the $5 million sent to NPR a real issue when billions upon billions go to supporting war and the war-machine to which we are so indebted? Why does the United States not have a system like the BBC in the United Kingdom?
These represent substantive questions which require dialogue and a development of a vision of the common good. Yet, American politics and American business cannot support discussions of the common good for it would undermine the pursuit of capital at all costs and would undermine the bureaucracy which tries to rule our lives.
So once more, I challenge each of us to begin talking about the common good and to find unity with each other rather than allowing ourselves to be divided by the political rhetoric that only serves to maintain the status quo and keep those in power in power.
Just War, Bahrain, and Libya
16/03/11 14:16 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
Much is happening in the world right now, so much it’s hard to keep track. Since the 9.0 earthquake in Japan, the subsequent tsunami, and the troubles with the nuclear reactor, the news coming out of the Middle East has been downplayed or ignored. Yet, troubles are a-brewing in the Middle East, especially in Bahrain and in Libya.
Both places have witnessed protests against the reigning monarchs. Muammar Quadafi has ruled Libya for over forty years, oppressing people. In Bahrain, the ruling Suuni oppress the majority Shi’ites. The United States, which has a large naval base in Bahrain, has remained out of the conflict, while condemning the actions of Bahrain’s rulers and the Saudi Arabian use of force against the Shi’ites. Of course,this is easy for the United States: they are not the ones suffering or the ones who have no voice. They’re the ones with televisions, iPads, and iPods.
As I write that, however, I have to come face to face with the tradition of just war theory, a theory first proposed by St. Augustine in the face of invasions in the late Roman Empire and expounded upon by St. Thomas during the middle ages, as the fledgling kingdoms of Europe began to assert their authority and their military might. I have to meet this face to face because I condemned both Iraqi wars and even the war in Afghanistan. The two iraqi wars were waged, not over justice or the rights of the people, but over oil. And, as Pope John Paul II clearly enunciated, modern warfare can hardly ever be legitimated by the principles of just war. Why?
One principle of just war requires that civilians not be harmed. Yet, even with “smart” bombs and modern guidance techniques, we see thousands upon thousands of civilians murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in Pakistan by the United States military.
So why should the United States interfere once more, this time in Bahrain or in Libya?
I’m not sure except this: I see people fighting for their freedom, for their rights, in the streets of Bahrain and in Libya. I wish they had not resorted to the violent protests and had remained non-violent like the protests in Egypt and Tunisia. Yet, what I’m witnessing is an offense against my moral sentiments: here are people trying to claim a better life for themselves by claiming rights that every person should enjoy. Yet, they are being beat by military forces that have oppressed them for decades.
What can I say to these people: protest but not violently, and then watch as their neighbors and themselves are mowed over by a military machine?
Sometimes being a moral philosopher isn’t easy. This time proves to be tough as nails.
Both places have witnessed protests against the reigning monarchs. Muammar Quadafi has ruled Libya for over forty years, oppressing people. In Bahrain, the ruling Suuni oppress the majority Shi’ites. The United States, which has a large naval base in Bahrain, has remained out of the conflict, while condemning the actions of Bahrain’s rulers and the Saudi Arabian use of force against the Shi’ites. Of course,this is easy for the United States: they are not the ones suffering or the ones who have no voice. They’re the ones with televisions, iPads, and iPods.
As I write that, however, I have to come face to face with the tradition of just war theory, a theory first proposed by St. Augustine in the face of invasions in the late Roman Empire and expounded upon by St. Thomas during the middle ages, as the fledgling kingdoms of Europe began to assert their authority and their military might. I have to meet this face to face because I condemned both Iraqi wars and even the war in Afghanistan. The two iraqi wars were waged, not over justice or the rights of the people, but over oil. And, as Pope John Paul II clearly enunciated, modern warfare can hardly ever be legitimated by the principles of just war. Why?
One principle of just war requires that civilians not be harmed. Yet, even with “smart” bombs and modern guidance techniques, we see thousands upon thousands of civilians murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in Pakistan by the United States military.
So why should the United States interfere once more, this time in Bahrain or in Libya?
I’m not sure except this: I see people fighting for their freedom, for their rights, in the streets of Bahrain and in Libya. I wish they had not resorted to the violent protests and had remained non-violent like the protests in Egypt and Tunisia. Yet, what I’m witnessing is an offense against my moral sentiments: here are people trying to claim a better life for themselves by claiming rights that every person should enjoy. Yet, they are being beat by military forces that have oppressed them for decades.
What can I say to these people: protest but not violently, and then watch as their neighbors and themselves are mowed over by a military machine?
Sometimes being a moral philosopher isn’t easy. This time proves to be tough as nails.
Underwater Houses and Self-Reliance
15/03/11 09:30 Filed in: social justice | Popular Culture
In a post from the American Heritage Foundation about American exceptionalism, I found this little line:
All of these American ideals––political freedom and autonomy, citizen independence and self-reliance, limited government, religion, patriotism, and nationalist autonomy backed up by vigorous military power—comprise American exceptionalism.
Just before that, I heard on the radio that 20% of home foreclosures in the US are strategic ones: that is, even though the home owner has the capability to make the payments, they make the financial decision to walk away from a home that’s under water -- one on which they owe more than the home is valued at.
I thought about what this meant with respect to the idea of self-reliance. Yet, I was not thinking about how these people failed in self-reliance. Rather, I had in mind the way that the notion of self-reliance in fact keeps people in a situation which is financially untenable. Why?
We have an idea in America, broadcast on the movie screen over and over again, of the “man” who has “true grit” and is able to pull himself up by his boot straps. He is reliant -- no matter the cost to him, he will not fail in his obligations freely taken. This person is independent and autonomous in the strict meaning of the term: that is, the person is a law unto himself. AS my reference to Ture Grit shows, this idea applies to women as much as man, for the true hero of that book and movie is Mattie Ross, not Rooster Cogburn.
It is this idea that makes Americans pay untold prices to fulfill their obligations.
Yet, as America has evolved with the rise of capitalism, we’ve seen that corporations lack any notion of self-reliance. The corporate bail-out is only one example of such lack. In the case of under water houses, banks bear no costs and everyday citizens, who were most often swindled by a swift sales talk, bear the cost, while banks and others walk away stashing money away.
Why should the one least able to bear the burden be the sole one to bear it?
While self-reliance is a wonderful, bold idea, it is unrealistic in practice. Mattie would not have survived had it not been for Cogburn and Le Beouff. Our society cannot survive without a secure middle class of home owners. And banks could not survive except as free-riders on the backs of the rest of us.
I do not deny that people ought to honor their obligations. Rather, I suggest that honoring obligations must occur within a social milieu that makes the honoring of obligations a reasonable thing to do, rather than an irrational act in an irrational system.
All of these American ideals––political freedom and autonomy, citizen independence and self-reliance, limited government, religion, patriotism, and nationalist autonomy backed up by vigorous military power—comprise American exceptionalism.
Just before that, I heard on the radio that 20% of home foreclosures in the US are strategic ones: that is, even though the home owner has the capability to make the payments, they make the financial decision to walk away from a home that’s under water -- one on which they owe more than the home is valued at.
I thought about what this meant with respect to the idea of self-reliance. Yet, I was not thinking about how these people failed in self-reliance. Rather, I had in mind the way that the notion of self-reliance in fact keeps people in a situation which is financially untenable. Why?
We have an idea in America, broadcast on the movie screen over and over again, of the “man” who has “true grit” and is able to pull himself up by his boot straps. He is reliant -- no matter the cost to him, he will not fail in his obligations freely taken. This person is independent and autonomous in the strict meaning of the term: that is, the person is a law unto himself. AS my reference to Ture Grit shows, this idea applies to women as much as man, for the true hero of that book and movie is Mattie Ross, not Rooster Cogburn.
It is this idea that makes Americans pay untold prices to fulfill their obligations.
Yet, as America has evolved with the rise of capitalism, we’ve seen that corporations lack any notion of self-reliance. The corporate bail-out is only one example of such lack. In the case of under water houses, banks bear no costs and everyday citizens, who were most often swindled by a swift sales talk, bear the cost, while banks and others walk away stashing money away.
Why should the one least able to bear the burden be the sole one to bear it?
While self-reliance is a wonderful, bold idea, it is unrealistic in practice. Mattie would not have survived had it not been for Cogburn and Le Beouff. Our society cannot survive without a secure middle class of home owners. And banks could not survive except as free-riders on the backs of the rest of us.
I do not deny that people ought to honor their obligations. Rather, I suggest that honoring obligations must occur within a social milieu that makes the honoring of obligations a reasonable thing to do, rather than an irrational act in an irrational system.
Time
14/03/11 15:23 Filed in: Human Nature
What is time?
St. Augustine said of this topic, “If you don’t ask me, I know, but if you ask me, I don’t know.” Time is that fickle or slippery, or however you want to think of it.
In the United States, we must all think of it today. Over the weekend, we sprung forward, setting our clocks ahead for daylight savings time. That means, we lost an hour of sleep, unless we were smart enough to go to sleep an hour earlier. Me? Well, not only was I not smart enough to go to sleep an hour earlier, I took a one-night job working karaoke, which kept me up several hours later.
The loss of sleep is a physical experience.
But there’s also a mental experience as well. I’m well aware right now that the clock reports it being an hour later than at the same relative time last week. Yet, that remains at the surface level of our experience. We also experience time as part of living. We have the past that shaped us, and the future that holds promise for us. In our modern, fast-paced industrial lives, we struggle to hold on to the now. Ask lovers and parents or someone who has lost a loved one what “now” means.
Of the philosophers who’ve spoken about time, Augustine and Heidegger prove the most insightful. Augustine, after much speculation, concluded that time is a mental experience. His understanding would fit well with Einstein’s relativity theory. Our experience of time, while objective in many ways, proves relative to where we are in space. We cannot speak of “time” per se, but must speak of time-space.
Heidegger notes that we experience being-toward-time. For me, the best way to understand this concept is through Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot. Asimov tells the story of a thinking robot who undergoes a procedure that will make him die. The robot has search for a long time for what will make him human. He realizes, in the end, that it must be the experience that death comes; that he has only a short time to carry out his purpose on earth. That captures, I think, Heidegger’s understanding of being-toward-time. Our lives, our experiences, are shaped by a notion of time that gives importance to time, in way that non-human animals and robots cannot understand time.
Even God cannot understand time. He has no being-toward-time. It’s a logical impossibility, for God is eternal, which Max Scheler points out, means He cannot experience a before and after. Augustine and St. Thomas understood this.
The other side of that coin, though, is that we -- human beings -- are beings of time. It’s part of our humanity. Which is why, when you finish reading this post, you might ask yourself: was that a waste of time?
St. Augustine said of this topic, “If you don’t ask me, I know, but if you ask me, I don’t know.” Time is that fickle or slippery, or however you want to think of it.
In the United States, we must all think of it today. Over the weekend, we sprung forward, setting our clocks ahead for daylight savings time. That means, we lost an hour of sleep, unless we were smart enough to go to sleep an hour earlier. Me? Well, not only was I not smart enough to go to sleep an hour earlier, I took a one-night job working karaoke, which kept me up several hours later.
The loss of sleep is a physical experience.
But there’s also a mental experience as well. I’m well aware right now that the clock reports it being an hour later than at the same relative time last week. Yet, that remains at the surface level of our experience. We also experience time as part of living. We have the past that shaped us, and the future that holds promise for us. In our modern, fast-paced industrial lives, we struggle to hold on to the now. Ask lovers and parents or someone who has lost a loved one what “now” means.
Of the philosophers who’ve spoken about time, Augustine and Heidegger prove the most insightful. Augustine, after much speculation, concluded that time is a mental experience. His understanding would fit well with Einstein’s relativity theory. Our experience of time, while objective in many ways, proves relative to where we are in space. We cannot speak of “time” per se, but must speak of time-space.
Heidegger notes that we experience being-toward-time. For me, the best way to understand this concept is through Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot. Asimov tells the story of a thinking robot who undergoes a procedure that will make him die. The robot has search for a long time for what will make him human. He realizes, in the end, that it must be the experience that death comes; that he has only a short time to carry out his purpose on earth. That captures, I think, Heidegger’s understanding of being-toward-time. Our lives, our experiences, are shaped by a notion of time that gives importance to time, in way that non-human animals and robots cannot understand time.
Even God cannot understand time. He has no being-toward-time. It’s a logical impossibility, for God is eternal, which Max Scheler points out, means He cannot experience a before and after. Augustine and St. Thomas understood this.
The other side of that coin, though, is that we -- human beings -- are beings of time. It’s part of our humanity. Which is why, when you finish reading this post, you might ask yourself: was that a waste of time?
Original Sin, Social Justice, and Mercy
12/03/11 11:54 Filed in: sunday reflections
You can read a story like this, about how Governor Walker has allowed lobbyist into the capital but not allowed everyday citizens and how he has given hundreds of millions in tax cuts while cutting billions from programs that serve the citizens and fall into the traditional lines of classical liberalism in America: democrat or republican. But if you read that story alongside the Church readings for the first Sunday of Lent, you might want to resist that move.
Stealing from the poor -- whether by the government or by corporations -- is taking the devil up on his third temptation to Christ.
Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain,
and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence,
and he said to him, "All these I shall give to you,
if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.”
It is to eat from the tree in the Garden of Eden, when human beings broke from God and broke from each other. Remember. Eve and Adam turned against each other as soon as they ate from the tree: blaming each for their sin.
If we are to return to the Garden of Eden and return to God, we must join together. We must absolutely and resolutely resist the forces that divide us into us and them -- into public employees and private employees, into union members and non-union members, into immigrants and citizens, into Hispanics and caucasians.
Religion is “tying back together.” Our first task as Catholics is to tie ourselves back together as human beings and as a community.
Stealing from the poor -- whether by the government or by corporations -- is taking the devil up on his third temptation to Christ.
Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain,
and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence,
and he said to him, "All these I shall give to you,
if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.”
It is to eat from the tree in the Garden of Eden, when human beings broke from God and broke from each other. Remember. Eve and Adam turned against each other as soon as they ate from the tree: blaming each for their sin.
If we are to return to the Garden of Eden and return to God, we must join together. We must absolutely and resolutely resist the forces that divide us into us and them -- into public employees and private employees, into union members and non-union members, into immigrants and citizens, into Hispanics and caucasians.
Religion is “tying back together.” Our first task as Catholics is to tie ourselves back together as human beings and as a community.
Wisconsin, Unions, and Reality
12/03/11 11:27 Filed in: social justice
Sorry to my readers for not posting the last two days. Hopefully this Saturday post will make up for it a little.
A lot has happened this week and over the last two weeks. In the Middle East and North Africa, we see continuing unrest. People are demanding changes in governments that have lasted for decades. Why? Because they don’t have food, they don’t have money to buy food, and they don’t have jobs. These are real reasons and real issues for real people who have been dominated all their lives by oppressive governments that allow no free speech and no free voice to the people they govern. More importantly, they govern, not for the people, but only for the interests of the leaders and the corporations and the oil barons. Yet, the United States stands by and watches, occasionally saying they support the people and want to see change, but it has to be governed, slow change. In other words, no change at all. Martin Luther King jr. was told to be patient, and he asked, When must we fight for social justice? NOW!
In Wisconsin, and throughout the United States, governors and politicians continue to attack the middle and lower classes in the name of “fiscal responsibility” in service to the corporations to whom they give tax break after tax break. If you are still unconvinced of what’s going on in Wisconsin, note this news that the bill Wisconsin passed, not only gets rid of collective bargaining rights, but allows government administrators to fire anyway who strikes. Governor Walker and the Republicans are not trying to save money or to raise revenue in order to run a good government. They are actively and systematically attacking unions and the ability of people to mobilize to fight for their rights against large corporations.
Maybe you are one of those free market thinkers that believes government should stay out of business and let corporations run themselves. Well, perhaps you should look at what happens when government does this. Before regulations were established, people worked seven days a week, sixteen hour days, including children. And when Reagan began cutting regulatory commissions, we saw an increase in e-coli outbreaks, corporate scandals, and general social ills.
Justice cannot be managed by letting large corporations “negotiate” with each and every person, because the corporation has all the power: you either take their job or you starve and watch your children starve. Those of you who hate Marx should remember that he watched seven of his children starve because of poverty during laissez faire capitalism.
We are in the same situation, and rather than having government serve our interests, we watch them serve the interests of the rich and powerful.
Perhaps someday, Americans will realize what’s going on in the Middle East and learn to stand up for their own rights in the same way.
Perhaps....
A lot has happened this week and over the last two weeks. In the Middle East and North Africa, we see continuing unrest. People are demanding changes in governments that have lasted for decades. Why? Because they don’t have food, they don’t have money to buy food, and they don’t have jobs. These are real reasons and real issues for real people who have been dominated all their lives by oppressive governments that allow no free speech and no free voice to the people they govern. More importantly, they govern, not for the people, but only for the interests of the leaders and the corporations and the oil barons. Yet, the United States stands by and watches, occasionally saying they support the people and want to see change, but it has to be governed, slow change. In other words, no change at all. Martin Luther King jr. was told to be patient, and he asked, When must we fight for social justice? NOW!
In Wisconsin, and throughout the United States, governors and politicians continue to attack the middle and lower classes in the name of “fiscal responsibility” in service to the corporations to whom they give tax break after tax break. If you are still unconvinced of what’s going on in Wisconsin, note this news that the bill Wisconsin passed, not only gets rid of collective bargaining rights, but allows government administrators to fire anyway who strikes. Governor Walker and the Republicans are not trying to save money or to raise revenue in order to run a good government. They are actively and systematically attacking unions and the ability of people to mobilize to fight for their rights against large corporations.
Maybe you are one of those free market thinkers that believes government should stay out of business and let corporations run themselves. Well, perhaps you should look at what happens when government does this. Before regulations were established, people worked seven days a week, sixteen hour days, including children. And when Reagan began cutting regulatory commissions, we saw an increase in e-coli outbreaks, corporate scandals, and general social ills.
Justice cannot be managed by letting large corporations “negotiate” with each and every person, because the corporation has all the power: you either take their job or you starve and watch your children starve. Those of you who hate Marx should remember that he watched seven of his children starve because of poverty during laissez faire capitalism.
We are in the same situation, and rather than having government serve our interests, we watch them serve the interests of the rich and powerful.
Perhaps someday, Americans will realize what’s going on in the Middle East and learn to stand up for their own rights in the same way.
Perhaps....
Lent and Human Nature
09/03/11 12:22 Filed in: Catholic Church | Human Nature
Today marks Ash Wednesday for most Christian denominations. In the Roman Catholic Church, parishioners attend a special mass in which the priest marks their foreheads with a cross made from ashes. Then, for the next forty days, Catholics sacrifice things they love and also attempt to change behaviors, moving from bad behaviors to good or incorporating more good behaviors into their lives.
The traditions and practices we engage in say something about our conceptions of human nature. Lent makes little sense if we don’t first believe that human beings are fallen creatures or, at least, that we fall occasionally. Nor does it makes sense if we aren’t redeemable in part through out actions. In many ways, the actions Catholics and Christians unertake during Lent recognize the truth of Aristotelian virtue theory -- that we can become more virtuous by consciously changing our behavior. Such an understanding of human behavior entails some modicum of free choice on our part.
The tradition of Lent, then, reveals a rather complex and sophisticated view of human nature. It recognizes our free choice in determining what kind of characters we have (virtuous or vicious) and the need for human beings to renew themselves occasionally. Such renewal begins with a recognition of our failings and our frailties. It cannot end there, though, and in many ways people corrupt Lent by forgetting that we can change and, moreover, that Easter represents, not only the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but our own resurrection. Fundamentally, Lent is hope. If we only sacrifice and do not actively pursue avenues of expansion of ourselves, we’ve really missed what Lent is about and, more importantly, what Easter is about. In recognizing that Easter is the most important Holy Day of the year, we can come to grasp that Hope rises up in our future because we allow God to form us as the best persons we can possibly be.
May your Lent be filled with hope and renewal and may God bless us with the Grace we need to change our lives for the better -- to change who we are for the better.
The traditions and practices we engage in say something about our conceptions of human nature. Lent makes little sense if we don’t first believe that human beings are fallen creatures or, at least, that we fall occasionally. Nor does it makes sense if we aren’t redeemable in part through out actions. In many ways, the actions Catholics and Christians unertake during Lent recognize the truth of Aristotelian virtue theory -- that we can become more virtuous by consciously changing our behavior. Such an understanding of human behavior entails some modicum of free choice on our part.
The tradition of Lent, then, reveals a rather complex and sophisticated view of human nature. It recognizes our free choice in determining what kind of characters we have (virtuous or vicious) and the need for human beings to renew themselves occasionally. Such renewal begins with a recognition of our failings and our frailties. It cannot end there, though, and in many ways people corrupt Lent by forgetting that we can change and, moreover, that Easter represents, not only the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but our own resurrection. Fundamentally, Lent is hope. If we only sacrifice and do not actively pursue avenues of expansion of ourselves, we’ve really missed what Lent is about and, more importantly, what Easter is about. In recognizing that Easter is the most important Holy Day of the year, we can come to grasp that Hope rises up in our future because we allow God to form us as the best persons we can possibly be.
May your Lent be filled with hope and renewal and may God bless us with the Grace we need to change our lives for the better -- to change who we are for the better.
Us and Them: On Public Employees
08/03/11 10:03 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
Articles like this one on Yahoo irk me. This particular article discusses the frustration and resentment that private employees feel toward public employees for having seemingly better pensions and better pay while on the job.
As I’ve tried to state over and over, it’s exactly this attitude that the media, the government, and business want to encourage among everyone. It’s divisive at heart, and what better serves those in power than to keep us who are not in power divided among ourselves? What better way to maintain the system as is than to keep those of us who have an interest in changing the system divided among ourselves?
Yes, we should sympathize with Erin McFarlane who has been laid off and is now working part time jobs. We should sympathize with everyone who cannot retire and live comfortable at 65 for a good 30 or 40 years (and maybe longer). What we should not do -- what we should never do -- is see this as something others have and we don’t. Rather, we should investigate whose interests this really serves.
Otherwise, we are left with the conclusion that my colleague Bob posted: “I'm so horribly mad at families earning $75,000 per year including benefits. They are milking the system to death. Everybody should be one paycheck away from financial ruin, or the system just isn't fair.”
Instead, we should recognize that unions have worked for public employees and that we should demand unions for ourselves. We should run every company, from Walmart on down, out of business that does not allow its employees to unionize. The right to join in social groups for a common good is a moral right and a right defended by the Catholic Church and by the UN Declaration of human rights.
It’s time we begin to stop listening to divisive rhetoric -- whether from Fox of MSNBC -- and start uniting to make our lives better.
As I’ve tried to state over and over, it’s exactly this attitude that the media, the government, and business want to encourage among everyone. It’s divisive at heart, and what better serves those in power than to keep us who are not in power divided among ourselves? What better way to maintain the system as is than to keep those of us who have an interest in changing the system divided among ourselves?
Yes, we should sympathize with Erin McFarlane who has been laid off and is now working part time jobs. We should sympathize with everyone who cannot retire and live comfortable at 65 for a good 30 or 40 years (and maybe longer). What we should not do -- what we should never do -- is see this as something others have and we don’t. Rather, we should investigate whose interests this really serves.
Otherwise, we are left with the conclusion that my colleague Bob posted: “I'm so horribly mad at families earning $75,000 per year including benefits. They are milking the system to death. Everybody should be one paycheck away from financial ruin, or the system just isn't fair.”
Instead, we should recognize that unions have worked for public employees and that we should demand unions for ourselves. We should run every company, from Walmart on down, out of business that does not allow its employees to unionize. The right to join in social groups for a common good is a moral right and a right defended by the Catholic Church and by the UN Declaration of human rights.
It’s time we begin to stop listening to divisive rhetoric -- whether from Fox of MSNBC -- and start uniting to make our lives better.
Bodies: Somatic and Cultural
07/03/11 14:49 Filed in: Human Nature
In the very interesting book, Sexing the Body, Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist at Brown University in Rhodes Island, examines how bodies are sexed, not just through physical aspects, but also through culture. She argues that “sexuality is a somatic fact created by a cultural effect. She intends this position to avoid the dualisms that plague modern societies and sciences, including biology. For example, some feminists and others have argued that the sex of a body is natural and the gender of a body is constructed by society. Fausto-Sterling is forging a path between these naturalism and social constructionism.
Her approach is clearly on the right track. Bodies exist, but they exist in cultural milieus that interpret them as these kinds of bodies and not those kinds of bodies. Yet, the very moment we begin to make distinctions between these and those, we also frame our discourse which means we exclude certain categories of bodies.
Let’s take something a little less controversial (for some of us, anyway): Pluto. Pluto is a rocky mass circling the sun. Once it was considered a planet, now it is not. My generation will probably always see Pluto as a planet, even if we try not to, while my daughter’s generation might see it as either a planet or not a planet, and the generation after that will never know it as a planet. Human bodies can be similar: we see them as one way or another, and that way of seeing the body can change.
Let’s not think about sexing, for a moment, and think simply about beauty. What makes a beautiful body? Marilyn Monroe was a size 14 which, by the standards of 2011, would be overweight. (See, for example, The Devil Wears Prada.) Yet, someone might contend, you’re talking about values there: beautiful or not. Science talks about facts.
This point is the key, though: facts do not exist in a vacuum for us human beings. They exist within a particular tradition or a particular culture. Most of us would consider the law of gravity a fact, but it’s not. The Newtonian understanding of gravity has been superseded by relativity theory. Fausto-Sterling’s book is trying to explain how human bodies exist in cultural milieus which give them their very identification as bodies, as particular types of bodies.
This point does not mean that there is no truth about the situation. If relativism were true, it wouldn’t matter what science said about gravity or about bodies. Yet, it does matter. We can have a whole discussion about relativism and the position laid out here, but that would extend far beyond this particular post. Relativism, however, is a red herring. The real issue centers around how culture (tradition) frames the way we see the world and what that means for human nature. We are interpretive creatures, which means, at a very basic level, our lives entail providing interpretations of the world and testing them out. It’s in the testing of them that we avoid relativism.
Her approach is clearly on the right track. Bodies exist, but they exist in cultural milieus that interpret them as these kinds of bodies and not those kinds of bodies. Yet, the very moment we begin to make distinctions between these and those, we also frame our discourse which means we exclude certain categories of bodies.
Let’s take something a little less controversial (for some of us, anyway): Pluto. Pluto is a rocky mass circling the sun. Once it was considered a planet, now it is not. My generation will probably always see Pluto as a planet, even if we try not to, while my daughter’s generation might see it as either a planet or not a planet, and the generation after that will never know it as a planet. Human bodies can be similar: we see them as one way or another, and that way of seeing the body can change.
Let’s not think about sexing, for a moment, and think simply about beauty. What makes a beautiful body? Marilyn Monroe was a size 14 which, by the standards of 2011, would be overweight. (See, for example, The Devil Wears Prada.) Yet, someone might contend, you’re talking about values there: beautiful or not. Science talks about facts.
This point is the key, though: facts do not exist in a vacuum for us human beings. They exist within a particular tradition or a particular culture. Most of us would consider the law of gravity a fact, but it’s not. The Newtonian understanding of gravity has been superseded by relativity theory. Fausto-Sterling’s book is trying to explain how human bodies exist in cultural milieus which give them their very identification as bodies, as particular types of bodies.
This point does not mean that there is no truth about the situation. If relativism were true, it wouldn’t matter what science said about gravity or about bodies. Yet, it does matter. We can have a whole discussion about relativism and the position laid out here, but that would extend far beyond this particular post. Relativism, however, is a red herring. The real issue centers around how culture (tradition) frames the way we see the world and what that means for human nature. We are interpretive creatures, which means, at a very basic level, our lives entail providing interpretations of the world and testing them out. It’s in the testing of them that we avoid relativism.
Unemployment and Wanting Jobs
In a recent conversation with someone I consider a long-time friend and whom I respect, the discussion turned to people expecting the system to give them what they need rather than working for what they need or want. We often hear, especially during times of crisis, that unemployment is due to people being lazy or not wanting to work. They expect the system to pay them for sitting around and watching TV or having babies. I can remember people decrying the welfare queens throughout the 80’s and early 90’s. What I never heard, though, was why someone would want to stay at home with a bunch of crying babies just to avoid work? Note well, I was a registered Republican back then. Something should be said here, of course, about the idea of work and whether work includes taking care of children and the household, but I shall leave that aside for now.
Rather, I want to turn to this set of charts at The Atlantic. They compare the number of people that the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts being unemployed compared to those who want to work but do not count as being unemployed. Noticed that the number of marginalized has grown even when jobs have been added to economy. These are people who for whatever reason cannot find work. As a matter of fact, we know that if people are out of work for a long time, employers mistrust them and think that their lack of work is due to their own unwillingness rather than to the facts about the economy -- surely a poor judgment on the part of the employer.
The question these charts raise will most likely be hidden by the release of the new jobs created in February -- close to 200,000 jobs. Yet the question needs to be asked: why aren’t people who want to work working?
In On the Condition of Labor, Pope Leo XIII wrote that most people want to work. In On the Progress of Peoples, Paul VI wrote that people want “To do more, to learn more, to have more. The popes emphasize what I think is true: people want to work; they want to engage in those activities which they find meaningful and fulfilling. The problem is, as I’ve noted here before, that capitalism undermines those things which truly make us human -- the development of those truly human powers and abilities that define our species.
Which takes me back to that first question: does anyone prefer sitting around a house listening to babies cry? Maybe, but they do so because they find it meaningful work. Others, however, might prefer to get out of the house and pursue some other work but can’t find the work. Which, of course, returns us to the unemployment figures.
These figures are a disgrace to any human culture. They testify to a system or a structure of systems that denies human modes of being to a group of human people -- in this case, somewhere close to 15% of the American population, which does not include those who work part-time and would prefer full-time work.
Of course, some people would prefer to sit on the couch and watch television. I’ve met people like that. That raises other questions, however: why? Here I think we need turn no further than the system we live under. It’s a system that encourages the greatest pursuit of pleasure at the least cost. Sitting on the couch and watching television, if you can get away with it, is not a human way of life, but it is essentially a capitalist way of life.
Unemployment stands as a testament to our depraved way of life. A drop in the numbers only numbs us to that moral reality.
Rather, I want to turn to this set of charts at The Atlantic. They compare the number of people that the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts being unemployed compared to those who want to work but do not count as being unemployed. Noticed that the number of marginalized has grown even when jobs have been added to economy. These are people who for whatever reason cannot find work. As a matter of fact, we know that if people are out of work for a long time, employers mistrust them and think that their lack of work is due to their own unwillingness rather than to the facts about the economy -- surely a poor judgment on the part of the employer.
The question these charts raise will most likely be hidden by the release of the new jobs created in February -- close to 200,000 jobs. Yet the question needs to be asked: why aren’t people who want to work working?
In On the Condition of Labor, Pope Leo XIII wrote that most people want to work. In On the Progress of Peoples, Paul VI wrote that people want “To do more, to learn more, to have more. The popes emphasize what I think is true: people want to work; they want to engage in those activities which they find meaningful and fulfilling. The problem is, as I’ve noted here before, that capitalism undermines those things which truly make us human -- the development of those truly human powers and abilities that define our species.
Which takes me back to that first question: does anyone prefer sitting around a house listening to babies cry? Maybe, but they do so because they find it meaningful work. Others, however, might prefer to get out of the house and pursue some other work but can’t find the work. Which, of course, returns us to the unemployment figures.
These figures are a disgrace to any human culture. They testify to a system or a structure of systems that denies human modes of being to a group of human people -- in this case, somewhere close to 15% of the American population, which does not include those who work part-time and would prefer full-time work.
Of course, some people would prefer to sit on the couch and watch television. I’ve met people like that. That raises other questions, however: why? Here I think we need turn no further than the system we live under. It’s a system that encourages the greatest pursuit of pleasure at the least cost. Sitting on the couch and watching television, if you can get away with it, is not a human way of life, but it is essentially a capitalist way of life.
Unemployment stands as a testament to our depraved way of life. A drop in the numbers only numbs us to that moral reality.
Wisconsin Facts, Unions, and Justice
03/03/11 17:37 Filed in: social justice | Education
Fact Check has come out with some info on Wisconsin’s public-employee unions. It notes that Governor Walker faces a huge deficit in the billions, but also that teachers do not make anything near $100k as has been reported by conservatives. It does not address whether Walker’s proposal would cost money as some have suggested.
It’s great to have a system like Fact Check that investigates these issues in a way that you and I cannot. We have to remember, however, that facts are not the only issues here. More importantly, most, if not all, that I’ve written here defending unions, both for public employees and private employees, stands independent of these facts.
The issues come down to justice. An attack on public unions is an attack on all unions, and an attempt to destroy unions so that government and corporations have more power over the lives of people and can deny basic justice to people -- to you and me. When the employees have already agreed to cut their salaries and contribute more to their pensions, the issue of closing the budget no longer stands. The real issue is, and has always been, the justice that the state owes the employees and the defense of workers everywhere.
Yet, as I’ve insisted throughout my comments, we must turn toward more communal ways of supporting every day work -- like education. We must strengthen our local communities to resist the colonizing tendencies of government bureaucracies and corporate capitalistic imperatives. That remains our primary task in building a just society -- which will always be local first and foremost.
It’s great to have a system like Fact Check that investigates these issues in a way that you and I cannot. We have to remember, however, that facts are not the only issues here. More importantly, most, if not all, that I’ve written here defending unions, both for public employees and private employees, stands independent of these facts.
The issues come down to justice. An attack on public unions is an attack on all unions, and an attempt to destroy unions so that government and corporations have more power over the lives of people and can deny basic justice to people -- to you and me. When the employees have already agreed to cut their salaries and contribute more to their pensions, the issue of closing the budget no longer stands. The real issue is, and has always been, the justice that the state owes the employees and the defense of workers everywhere.
Yet, as I’ve insisted throughout my comments, we must turn toward more communal ways of supporting every day work -- like education. We must strengthen our local communities to resist the colonizing tendencies of government bureaucracies and corporate capitalistic imperatives. That remains our primary task in building a just society -- which will always be local first and foremost.
Watson's Relevance and Mattering to Us
03/03/11 12:54 Filed in: Human Nature | Popular Culture
In a eductive, My Dear Watson">recent post, I commented on the computer Watson that beat famous Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings. There, I discussed Dreyfus’ argument that computers can never be humans. In a recent editorial, Stanley Fish let Dreyfus speak about Watson.
Dreyfus notes that Watson belongs to a new kind of programming that tries to include responses and learning in the environment rather than strict programming to account for every situation. Yet, even here, Watson shows why computers fail to be like human beings: nothing matters to computers. Thus, Dreyfus writes “The fact is, things are relevant for human beings because at root we are beings for whom things matter. Relevance and mattering are two sides of the same coin.”
This insight helps explain some of our favorite robots in the history of science fiction. Asimov’s robot in I, Robot is concerned about the family he serves. They are relevant to him and they matter to him. Particularly their welfare. This same notion of concern for others is kept, though in a different form, in the Will Smith movie I, Robot. In that movie, the robot is concerned both for his master, who he killed, and also for humanity as a whole.
If we turn our attention to perhaps the most famous robot of all, Data in Star Trek, we can discover another thing that matters to robots: being human. In the original Asimov story and throughout Star Trek: The Next Generation, the principal androids want to be human. In the Asimov story, the robot wants to be human so much, he has himself programmed to die so he can experience death. (Something can be said here about Heidegger and his notion of being towards death, but that will be for another time.) In Star Trek, Data is constantly seeking to be human by having emotions. In both cases, being human matter to the robots/androids. What science fiction reveals, then, is that for a robot to seem human to us, they must be concerned about something -- something must matter to them.
Of course, being relevant and mattering are, in the end, aspects of our bodily existence. The phenomenologist Max Scheler points this out most clearly. Our life drives direct our perception and help shape the world for us. That is, the world matters to us because we have drives that motivate us to act on the world.
The question remains whether the new approach of scientists working in AI (artificial intelligence) can bridge the gap between having no concerns to being embedded in relevance and mattering the way human beings are. Dreyfus seems to see some hope here. I think, on the other hand, that if scientists can make this move, it won’t be a robot or android that we have worked from, but some hybrid of animal/human/computer.
Dreyfus notes that Watson belongs to a new kind of programming that tries to include responses and learning in the environment rather than strict programming to account for every situation. Yet, even here, Watson shows why computers fail to be like human beings: nothing matters to computers. Thus, Dreyfus writes “The fact is, things are relevant for human beings because at root we are beings for whom things matter. Relevance and mattering are two sides of the same coin.”
This insight helps explain some of our favorite robots in the history of science fiction. Asimov’s robot in I, Robot is concerned about the family he serves. They are relevant to him and they matter to him. Particularly their welfare. This same notion of concern for others is kept, though in a different form, in the Will Smith movie I, Robot. In that movie, the robot is concerned both for his master, who he killed, and also for humanity as a whole.
If we turn our attention to perhaps the most famous robot of all, Data in Star Trek, we can discover another thing that matters to robots: being human. In the original Asimov story and throughout Star Trek: The Next Generation, the principal androids want to be human. In the Asimov story, the robot wants to be human so much, he has himself programmed to die so he can experience death. (Something can be said here about Heidegger and his notion of being towards death, but that will be for another time.) In Star Trek, Data is constantly seeking to be human by having emotions. In both cases, being human matter to the robots/androids. What science fiction reveals, then, is that for a robot to seem human to us, they must be concerned about something -- something must matter to them.
Of course, being relevant and mattering are, in the end, aspects of our bodily existence. The phenomenologist Max Scheler points this out most clearly. Our life drives direct our perception and help shape the world for us. That is, the world matters to us because we have drives that motivate us to act on the world.
The question remains whether the new approach of scientists working in AI (artificial intelligence) can bridge the gap between having no concerns to being embedded in relevance and mattering the way human beings are. Dreyfus seems to see some hope here. I think, on the other hand, that if scientists can make this move, it won’t be a robot or android that we have worked from, but some hybrid of animal/human/computer.
Unions, Governments, and Institutions
02/03/11 11:03 Filed in: social justice
In another post condemning public-employee unions. I’ve already addressed how unions make good contributions and why public-employee unions are necessary to good government and recapturing justice in our society in a recent post. Kaus recognizes an insight I made when he writes “Because, while organized labor quieted down for a while, its institutional basis was not destroyed.” Public unions are necessary, especially now, to protect private sector unions. Of course, for Kaus, that’s no reason at all.
Having said that I want to take issue with something else he wrote: Kaus notes that “Democrats are the party that needs the government to be good at something other than mailing out checks.”
The problem here is that unions should not be a “party” issue. If government is truly for the people, and if each party represents the people, then each party -- and all citizens interested in the common good of the society -- should be for unions. Why? Because, as this article shows, unions are the only means of protecting hard working people from layoffs, decreased wages, decreased benefits, loss of pensions, and secure employment. All of these are social goods -- goods that can only be gained through the community. As such, they should be protected by any good government and any good government party. Not to protect them is to define one’s self as against the common good, or, in short, evil.
Yet, we have to recognize that Kaus’ claims that unions make government services bad is an oft heard complaint. It is, by the way, a mirror to what we heard in the 1980’s under Reagan: that unions make for bad work, they get paid for not working, they get more days off, they sit around all the time, etc. First, we have to recognize that these sorts of attacks are meant to divide us: we should be against those in unions. In truth, the community must come together if it is to survive, and that means resisting such divisive rhetoric, as I’ve noted here.
Yet, we must also caution that institutions often serve their own interests and that bureaucracy is a plague on our society and a plague on the human good. In other words, I accept the idea that institutions per se can have demeaning effects on human goods. Public-employee unions are part of our institutions today, and so some might be able to legitimately argue that public-employee unions are demeaning to the human good today. But we need to separate out the effects of the institution and the effects of the public-employee unions.
Institutions are necessary for our pursuit of goods. Without an educational institution, the pursuit of learning would be more difficult. Without institutions dedicated to law, to science, to the humanities, pursuit of the goods in those practices would falter. Yet, institutions, according to Alasdair MacIntyre, by their nature are aimed at the external goods necessary to maintain the practices they center on. Our problem today is that institutions in a capitalistic-bureaucratic system have completely hampered the pursuit of the internal goods of their practices.
Getting rid of unions does not solve that problem. Rather, restructuring the way our institutions work and ending capitalism provides the clearest way to resurrecting the goods of practices. This can be done first and foremost, and BEST, on the local level in the local communities. Unions have a role here too: public-employee unions in maintaining and supporting efficient running of local governments and as a safeguard to the withering away of private employee unions. Private employee unions as a means of protecting jobs, wages, benefits, and the goods of practices.
Having said that I want to take issue with something else he wrote: Kaus notes that “Democrats are the party that needs the government to be good at something other than mailing out checks.”
The problem here is that unions should not be a “party” issue. If government is truly for the people, and if each party represents the people, then each party -- and all citizens interested in the common good of the society -- should be for unions. Why? Because, as this article shows, unions are the only means of protecting hard working people from layoffs, decreased wages, decreased benefits, loss of pensions, and secure employment. All of these are social goods -- goods that can only be gained through the community. As such, they should be protected by any good government and any good government party. Not to protect them is to define one’s self as against the common good, or, in short, evil.
Yet, we have to recognize that Kaus’ claims that unions make government services bad is an oft heard complaint. It is, by the way, a mirror to what we heard in the 1980’s under Reagan: that unions make for bad work, they get paid for not working, they get more days off, they sit around all the time, etc. First, we have to recognize that these sorts of attacks are meant to divide us: we should be against those in unions. In truth, the community must come together if it is to survive, and that means resisting such divisive rhetoric, as I’ve noted here.
Yet, we must also caution that institutions often serve their own interests and that bureaucracy is a plague on our society and a plague on the human good. In other words, I accept the idea that institutions per se can have demeaning effects on human goods. Public-employee unions are part of our institutions today, and so some might be able to legitimately argue that public-employee unions are demeaning to the human good today. But we need to separate out the effects of the institution and the effects of the public-employee unions.
Institutions are necessary for our pursuit of goods. Without an educational institution, the pursuit of learning would be more difficult. Without institutions dedicated to law, to science, to the humanities, pursuit of the goods in those practices would falter. Yet, institutions, according to Alasdair MacIntyre, by their nature are aimed at the external goods necessary to maintain the practices they center on. Our problem today is that institutions in a capitalistic-bureaucratic system have completely hampered the pursuit of the internal goods of their practices.
Getting rid of unions does not solve that problem. Rather, restructuring the way our institutions work and ending capitalism provides the clearest way to resurrecting the goods of practices. This can be done first and foremost, and BEST, on the local level in the local communities. Unions have a role here too: public-employee unions in maintaining and supporting efficient running of local governments and as a safeguard to the withering away of private employee unions. Private employee unions as a means of protecting jobs, wages, benefits, and the goods of practices.
"Academic" Philosophy and Stanley Fish
01/03/11 16:27 Filed in: social justice | Practices
Stanley Fish argues for the value of academic philosophy by citing the example of a conference on originalism in law. His argument makes perfect sense if you value academic philosophy. The problem is, academic philosophy is mere sophistry. It has nothing to do with the real immediate concerns of everyday human beings in their every day discussions. This is why someone like Alasdair MacIntyre attacks and condemns philosophy as practiced in the universities today. Like other academic disciplines, philosophy has been co-opted by the market system. All that matters is producing students who can write papers that have little meaning and will be read by a handful of others. That is not the origins of philosophy.
Philosophy, rather, begins with discussions of the good at the every day level. The more that the university corrupts the true spirit of philosophy, the more it comes under attack as not attending to the bottom-line, and rightly so. Philosophy, by its very nature, cannot attend to the bottom-line. Philosophy concerns, not making money or adding to the bottom line, but living the good life. This argument does not entail that those who are philosophically trained cannot earn money or run profitable businesses. Just the opposite. Ask CEO’s and they will tell you they want philosophers who think logically in management positions.
Yet, philosophy always comes into conflict when it begins to ask about the good. What is the good of this product? What is the good of this move? These are the sorts of questions that we need to ask at the local and national level. Insofar as philosophers practice academic philosophy, however, they undermine the ability to ask those questions.
Philosophy, rather, begins with discussions of the good at the every day level. The more that the university corrupts the true spirit of philosophy, the more it comes under attack as not attending to the bottom-line, and rightly so. Philosophy, by its very nature, cannot attend to the bottom-line. Philosophy concerns, not making money or adding to the bottom line, but living the good life. This argument does not entail that those who are philosophically trained cannot earn money or run profitable businesses. Just the opposite. Ask CEO’s and they will tell you they want philosophers who think logically in management positions.
Yet, philosophy always comes into conflict when it begins to ask about the good. What is the good of this product? What is the good of this move? These are the sorts of questions that we need to ask at the local and national level. Insofar as philosophers practice academic philosophy, however, they undermine the ability to ask those questions.
Wisconsin, Cuts, and Facts
01/03/11 16:12 Filed in: social justice | Education
Wisconsin’s Governor Walker unveiled his budget today which included 1.5 billion in cuts to education and government assistance program while not increasing taxes or laying people off. Walker insists that his budget is necessary and, further, that cutting collective bargaining is necessary to bring the budget into balance. But as a recent AP report shows, Walker’s facts are wrong: public employees do NOT make more than private employees when compared at same levels of employment and education. It is FALSE to compare a public employee’s wage, when said employee often has an advanced degree, to the wage of someone working as a clerk in a big-box store.
With respect to education, Walker “also proposed requiring school districts to reduce their property tax authority by an average of $550 per pupil — a move that makes it more difficult for schools to make up the lost money.” It’s unclear how reducing property taxes for schools that face a shrink budget serves the common good.
More importantly and more a smack in the face to the common person “Walker asked for $82 million in tax cuts, including an expanded exclusion for capital gains realized on investments made in Wisconsin-based businesses. The Legislature previously approved more than $117 million in Walker-backed tax cuts that take effect later this year.” How can one justify such tax cuts when the state is suffering from such dire financial straights? Can anyone continue to doubt that Wlker is at the fore-front of a battle of the rich against the poor?
Walker does not have in the front of his mind the common good of the people, for he continually tramps on the people.
Yet, as I stated in my last post, we face every day the wearing away of human dignity by corporations, corporate politicians, and bureaucracies. What people have to do is come together as local communities and insulate themselves as much as possible from the demeaning and dehumanizing budgets -- budgets which are clearly moral documents -- in order to build opportunities in their local communities for human development. This entails everyone in the community coming together, first, to dialogue and to seek out means to preserving the integrity of the community.
Essential to preserving the integrity of the community is public education. One move I think should be consider is the role Catholic schools do or do not play in the education system and what role they could play? So far, we play a divisive game: public versus private education, rich versus poor. We must move beyond these divides and find common grounds for the community itself.
With respect to education, Walker “also proposed requiring school districts to reduce their property tax authority by an average of $550 per pupil — a move that makes it more difficult for schools to make up the lost money.” It’s unclear how reducing property taxes for schools that face a shrink budget serves the common good.
More importantly and more a smack in the face to the common person “Walker asked for $82 million in tax cuts, including an expanded exclusion for capital gains realized on investments made in Wisconsin-based businesses. The Legislature previously approved more than $117 million in Walker-backed tax cuts that take effect later this year.” How can one justify such tax cuts when the state is suffering from such dire financial straights? Can anyone continue to doubt that Wlker is at the fore-front of a battle of the rich against the poor?
Walker does not have in the front of his mind the common good of the people, for he continually tramps on the people.
Yet, as I stated in my last post, we face every day the wearing away of human dignity by corporations, corporate politicians, and bureaucracies. What people have to do is come together as local communities and insulate themselves as much as possible from the demeaning and dehumanizing budgets -- budgets which are clearly moral documents -- in order to build opportunities in their local communities for human development. This entails everyone in the community coming together, first, to dialogue and to seek out means to preserving the integrity of the community.
Essential to preserving the integrity of the community is public education. One move I think should be consider is the role Catholic schools do or do not play in the education system and what role they could play? So far, we play a divisive game: public versus private education, rich versus poor. We must move beyond these divides and find common grounds for the community itself.
Corporations and Persons
01/03/11 13:08 Filed in: social justice
A post on the Story of Stuff discusses the Supreme Court decision granting the “right” to corporations to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns. It rightly notes that corporations are not “persons” and that our democracy is in crisis. In that urges us to take back our democracy. One of the proposals for doing so is to pass a constitutional amendment that defines “person” so it does not include corporations.
The video is very informative and very interesting and makes a lot of intelligent, useful points. In general, I agree with a constitutional amendment to change the definition of person (and would urge that such a change include the idea that zygotes and fetuses are persons).
However, a constitutional amendment would take a long time to pass. Further, the same people that control political campaigns will have the ability to fight against any such amendment. In short, while I think that people CAN make change and SHOULD make change, the practicalities seem more limited.
We should not abandon hope or faith at this point. Faith means that we remain committed to working for change no matter how insurmountable the obstacle and how long it takes. Hope means that we believe in each other (and God for those of us who are religious) to work for the good. Faith and hope, however, can be exercised at both the national and the local level.
While we fight at the national level for amendments and contend against corporations, we must struggle at the local level to revitalize our communities to protect them from the power of corporations, national politics and decisions, and the bureaucracy that rules America. This struggle entails looking at what we can do to build local communities that are truly democratic and focused on pursuing a common good.
I know that this is easier said than done. But look, for instance, at what people did in High Point Seattle to make their community stronger and better by building better, more affordable housing? If one community can do, all communities can do it. What it takes is the collective will coming together to work for change.
Please respond with ideas about how to build local communities and make progressive change that defies corporations and bureaucracies.
The video is very informative and very interesting and makes a lot of intelligent, useful points. In general, I agree with a constitutional amendment to change the definition of person (and would urge that such a change include the idea that zygotes and fetuses are persons).
However, a constitutional amendment would take a long time to pass. Further, the same people that control political campaigns will have the ability to fight against any such amendment. In short, while I think that people CAN make change and SHOULD make change, the practicalities seem more limited.
We should not abandon hope or faith at this point. Faith means that we remain committed to working for change no matter how insurmountable the obstacle and how long it takes. Hope means that we believe in each other (and God for those of us who are religious) to work for the good. Faith and hope, however, can be exercised at both the national and the local level.
While we fight at the national level for amendments and contend against corporations, we must struggle at the local level to revitalize our communities to protect them from the power of corporations, national politics and decisions, and the bureaucracy that rules America. This struggle entails looking at what we can do to build local communities that are truly democratic and focused on pursuing a common good.
I know that this is easier said than done. But look, for instance, at what people did in High Point Seattle to make their community stronger and better by building better, more affordable housing? If one community can do, all communities can do it. What it takes is the collective will coming together to work for change.
Please respond with ideas about how to build local communities and make progressive change that defies corporations and bureaucracies.